Winters v. State

• Decision Date: 09 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. CR12–537.,CR12–537.
• Citation: 2013 Ark. 193,427 S.W.3d 597
• Parties: Michael Shane WINTERS, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2013 Ark. 193

427 S.W.3d 597

Michael Shane WINTERS, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR12–537.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 9, 2013.

Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Kathryn Henry, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

DONALD L. CORBIN, Associate Justice.

Appellant, Michael Shane Winters, appeals the judgment of the Benton County Circuit Court convicting him of two counts of capital murder and two counts of aggravated robbery and sentencing him consecutively to two sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the capital murders and two sentences of life imprisonment for the aggravated robberies. Because Appellant was sentenced to life without parole, our jurisdiction of this appeal is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule l–2(a)(2) (2012). Appellant raises two points for reversal. First, he contends that the statements he made to police should have been suppressed because they were coerced. Second, he contends that a witness, Arron Lewis, should have been allowed to testify as to a “statement against interest” that Appellant's accomplice made to Lewis. We find no merit to the appeal and affirm.

Because Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, we need only recite the evidence presented that relates to the issues on appeal. Vance v. State, 2011 Ark. 243, 383 S.W.3d 325. Suffice it to say here that Appellant was tried by a Benton County jury and convicted of the aggravated robberies and capital murders of Christina Bishop and Louise Bishop. The Bishops were the forty-year-old mother and eighty-one-year-old grandmother of Appellant's accomplice, Nicholas Johansen. Nicholas Johansen is the half-brother of Appellant's girlfriend, Susan Martin. The Bishops were reported missing in June 2009. Their bodies were discovered in February 2010 in a makeshift grave on the property owned by the Johansen family. The cause of death of both victims was strangulation.

I. Confession

As his first point for reversal, Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain custodial statements he made to police. Appellant, who presented expert testimony that he is of borderline intellectual functioning, contends that he consistently denied involvement in the crimes until, after what he describes as repeated and prolonged interrogation, the police coerced a confession from him as to the location of the bodies and his involvement in the crimes. Specifically, Appellant contends that the officers made various promises to him, repeatedly preyed upon his concerns for his family and for giving the victims a proper burial, and then finally, due in part to his borderline intellectual functioning, coerced a confession. Appellant moved to suppress these statements as being obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; article 2, sections 8 and 10 of the Arkansas Constitution; and Rules 2.3 and 4.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, however, Appellant maintains simply that his will was overborne and his confessions were “involuntary and in violation of constitutional rights.”

Appellant's motion to suppress centered on four custodial interviews that occurred on February 16 and 17, 2010. The first interview on February 16, 2010, occurred at 9:00 a.m. and lasted approximately thirty minutes. The detectives testified at the suppression hearing that they sought this interview with Appellant, who was then incarcerated at the Benton County jail on other unrelated charges, because there had been a break in the case when Appellant's girlfriend, Susan Martin,¹ voluntarily came to the station on February 14 and again on February 15 to tell police that Appellant had previously confessed to her his involvement in the Bishop murders. During this interview, Appellant denied any involvement with the Bishop crimes. At its conclusion, the officers returned Appellant to the Benton County jail.

The second interview on February 16, 2010, was at 1:00 p.m., and it also lasted approximately thirty minutes. During the hours intervening between the first and second interview, a search of the Johansen property was underway, and the interviewing officers obtained photographs from the search showing the victims' purses and other personal effects. During this second interview, the detectives showed Appellant the photographs and also informed Appellant of Susan Martin's previous discussions with police incriminating Appellant. According to Appellant, it was during this interview that the officers began using coercive tactics such as repeatedly invoking his concern for his girlfriend as well as for giving the victims a proper burial. Appellant points out that the officers asked Appellant to “put the shoe on the other foot. If this was your family wouldn't you want to find them so you can give them a proper ... burial. Think about your wife being underground right now.” At this point, Appellant asked if the officers could arrange for him to see Martin if he helped them. The officers replied that they could arrange for a meeting and then continued to appeal to him to find the courage to tell them where they could “find these ladies.” Appellant agreed, saying, “I'll tell you if I can see my wife.” Appellant then left with the detectives, who bought him some cigarettes and drove him to Martin's residence. As she was not home, Appellant then directed the officers to the Johansen property and showed them where the bodies were buried. On the return trip to the police station, the officers made a second attempt for Appellant to visit with Martin at her residence, but she still was not home.

The third interview occurred later in the day on February 16, 2010, at 4:10 p.m., after Appellant had shown the detectives the location of the bodies on the Johansen property. This interview lasted approximately three and one-half hours, and Appellant admitted to his further involvement in the Bishop murders and to disposing of their bodies. The fourth interview occurred the next day on February 17, 2010, and lasted approximately twenty minutes, with the officers asking a few follow-up questions from the events of the day before.

All four statements were recorded by audio and transcribed. It is undisputed that Appellant was in custody at the time he gave the statements, but he does not challenge the admissibility of the statements based on any Miranda violation. Although Appellant challenges the admission of all four statements on the basis that they were coerced, he complains that the initial coercion occurred during the second interview on February 16 and therefore all statements after that must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, ruling from the bench that it was clear to the court that Appellant's statement was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given even beyond the preponderance-of-the evidence standard. The circuit court found there was no intimidation, coercion, or deceptive practices to cause the statement to be anything other than voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given. The circuit court went on to state that its decision took into account that Appellant had had previous encounters with law enforcement where he had waived his rights and given statements in unrelated cases. The circuit court also noted that no physical or mental punishment was used. The court noted that the officers endeavored to take Appellant to his girlfriend's apartment twice when they went to locate the bodies on the Johansen property and that Appellant appeared grateful for the opportunities. The circuit court specifically observed that the questioning of Appellant was calm and low-key. Finally, the court noted its surprise at the intellectual functioning of Appellant during the interviews, despite the expert evidence of his IQ being relatively low. The court noted that Appellant engaged the officers in a “cat-and-mouse” game. The circuit court concluded that it did not find Appellant to be a vulnerable individual and did not find the police interrogation of him to be coercive.

Our standard of review for cases involving a trial court's ruling on the voluntariness of a confession is that we make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances, and we reverse the trial court only if its ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294, 107 S.W.3d 136 (2003). A statement made while in custody is presumptively involuntary, and the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a custodial statement was given voluntarily and was knowingly and intelligently made. Id. This court looks to see if the confession was the product of free and deliberate choice rather than coercion, intimidation, or deception. Id. To make this determination, we review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement including the age, education, and intelligence of the accused; the lack of advice as to his constitutional rights; the length of the detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the use of mental or physical punishment; statements made by the interrogating officers; and the vulnerability of the defendant. Osburn v. State, 2009 Ark. 390, 326 S.W.3d 771. We have previously held, in determining whether a statement was the product of coercion, that it must be demonstrated that the activity of the police had a particular effect upon the accused, such that “there must be an ‘essential link between coercive activity of the State, on the one hand, and a resulting confession by a defendant, on the other.’ ” Id. at 22–23, 326 S.W.3d at 785 (quoting Standridge v. State, 357 Ark. 105, 122, 161 S.W.3d 815, 824 (2004) (quoting Colorado v. Connelly, 479...